Skip to content

Conrad Murray’s CNN interview on the Fifth Anniversary of Michael’s Death. Part 3. A DISGUSTING SCENE

July 15, 2014

The purpose of this three-part series about Conrad Murray’s CNN interview is not to try and get to the truth of what happened on the fateful night Michael Jackson died – this will be  eventually known to us from the evidence and scientific findings which will one day connect all dots.

The purpose of this series is to show the reason why CNN gave Murray a platform to speak on the fifth anniversary of Michael’s death, and why Don Lemon played such a dummy while Murray was freely relating to us a new series of his lies.

By the end of the interview Don Lemon made this reason absolutely clear and when you read the remaining part of it, it will become obvious to you too. 


LEMON:  Do you think that he was up to these – this 50 – this mammoth 50-show extravaganza that he was to star at the – in London?

MURRAY:  He was not.


MURRAY:  Michael was offered initially 10 shows.  It went to 31 and then subsequently to 50.  But no one knows that he was actually offered 100 shows.

LEMON:  OK. This was something – and, by the way, I covered your trial.  I was there.


LEMON:  I sat right behind the family, right, right behind the mom and the dad. And I want – this was very – when they played it, very emotional in court.

MURRAY:  Sure.

LEMON:  All right, you recorded Michael talking about the show.  Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JACKSON:  When people leave this show – when people leave my show, I want them to say, I’ve never seen nothing like this in my life.  Go.  Go.  I’ve never seen nothing like this.  Go.  It’s amazing.  He’s the greatest entertainer in the world. (END AUDIO CLIP)

LEMON:  Dr. Murray, that is disturbing.  Anyone in that condition, why would you continue to give him drugs and then give him Propofol? 

Isn’t it interesting how the tape is reproduced by Lemon again and again but always without its most essential part? The part where Michael speaks about God and children, where he calls them angels and says how it hurts him to see them ill. Never will you hear the media play it…

And could someone please explain to Don Lemon that the condition Michael was talking in is actually not that disturbing – any doctor would tell you that it is a normal condition of patients under sedation. Anesthesiologists hear their patients talk like that all the time.

LEMON:  And why would you record that?

MURRAY:  Well, first of all, I was accused of recording that so that I can take advantage of Michael down the road.  And that was not the case. I did not even recognize or realize that that recording was actually on my phone.  Michael had asked me, well, as far as I could look back, how much he snores at night.  And I would speak to him about that.  He wanted to record that, not only on tape, but on camera.  I actually had just learned from my daughter who taught me to do talks and one of the apps on the phone.

LEMON:  How to work it.

MURRAY:  Right.

LEMON:  But the question behind that is, so you were trying to monitor his sleep pattern, whether or not he was snoring, and that’s how you got that recording.

MURRAY:  That’s exactly how that was done when I look back in retrospect, yes.

LEMON:  So then why would you continue?  Because if he was…

MURRAY:  Interestingly – good question. If you look at my – if you listen to that recording, you hear a man that is clearly in the sleep state of going to sleep.  But he is alert.  His conversation makes sense.

LEMON:  His mind is still active, even though he’s in a sleep state.

MURRAY:  Yes. But if you look at my statement to the police, I explained to them, to the police, all that Michael Jackson wanted, including the children’s hospital.  Michael was just reiterating his dream to me.  At the end of that state, of that recording, did you hear what he says in the end?  He says, I’m asleep.

LEMON:  I’m asleep.

The recording was made on May 10th which was almost immediately after Murray’s work for Michael began. Murray’s previous version why he made that recording was that he pushed the button by accident and didn’t even know that it had been made. And now he says that it was done on purpose and at Michael’s request too.

To explain this glaring controversy Murray says that this is what he remembers “looking back in retrospect” and “as far as he can look back” which suggests that Murray is another of those famous victims of amnesia. These days there are so many of those who suddenly recover their memories about Jackson that it is not even funny any more.

Another question which is not that funny is how come Murray began recording Michael even before he fell asleep if his only purpose was the “snore”? Of course it is another of his lies as the intention was to record Michael speaking and take advantage of him down the road as Murray himself worded it.

However the least funny part of the snore issue is that all patients under propofol start snoring at some point and it is considered by anesthesiologists no fun at all.

Snoring under propofol happens due to muscles relaxation when the tongue falls back and blocks the airway.  It is regarded as a very dangerous sign and precursor to a breathing arrest.  In a situation like this a proper doctor should act swiftly and lift the patient’s chin to unblock the airway – instead of fumbling with his IPad and recording the patient, of course.

The fact that Murray is clueless that the snore was actually a grave sign of his own negligence shows that his ignorance of the subject is so boundless that he doesn’t even realize that his words may be turned against him as a proof of his incompetence. So the more Murray talks the more he reveals how inadequate he was for the job he so carelessly undertook.


LEMON: OK.  Let’s move on.  Let’s talk about the drugs, right, more about the drugs.  I want to play this bit from my documentary, and then we will talk about it.

MURRAY:  Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID WALGREN, PROSECUTOR:  Two bottles of Lorazepam.  Lidocaine bottle.

LEMON:  DA Walgren added into evidence each vial and bottle found at Jackson’s house one after another.

WALGREN:  To take a patient with Valium, lorazepam, midazolam, and Propofol and to leave them unattended in that state is medical abandonment. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON:  Did you abandon Michael Jackson, your friend, medically?  Are you guilty of that?

MURRAY:  Absolutely not.  David Walgren. He is way off-field. Abandonment has a clear definition in medicine, and that’s not the case, neither did I abandon him on anything he was giving.  I have said very clearly, if Michael Jackson was in the Propofol infusion, that was a drip for three hours, as Dr. Shafer stated, from 9:00 until 12:00, and I left him with an infusion running, I would be guilty as sin, and I can accept that. But he was not.

LEMON:  And this bag that was ripped open with the Propofol bottle laying inside of the I.V. bag?

MURRAY:  Interestingly, interestingly…

LEMON:  And you talk than on your video.

MURRAY:  Yes, Propofol comes with a hanging sleeve.  It’s almost like opening a can of soda.  You pop it open.  You hang the bottle. That bottle was discovered with that device being completely intact.  Why would I take something so simple, take a bag of saline, cut it open, empty the fluid, then stick a Propofol bottle inside of the bag, and then take the bag to become the hanging contraption.

LEMON:  If you knew all of this…


LEMON:  … and I said I was there – and everyone kept saying, is he going to take the stand, is he going to take the stand?  Why didn’t you do it at trial?  I’m – were you thinking all of this at trial?

MURRAY:  Because they had never proven a case. First of all, they needed to have a drip, a continuous infusion.  That was not the case.  If you look at the numbers…

LEMON:  But my question is, Dr. Murray, why didn’t you take the stand in defense of yourself?

MURRAY:  Because my attorney and I agreed that they had not proven the case against me, so there was no reason to take the stand.  That was the legal advice.

LEMON:  Your attorney was wrong.

MURRAY:  Well, would it have changed anything, Don? If you look at the DA, the district attorney, Walgren, that altered evidence in the courtroom, tampered with evidence outside of the courtroom also…

LEMON:  Yes.

Why “Yes” from Don Lemon? I watched every minute of the trial and DA Walgren did not alter any evidence!

In Don Lemon’s place a much more appropriate reaction would be to ask why Murray was tampering with the evidence and collecting the vials, and the call to 911 was not made until the room was tidied up. Lemon could also ask Murray why he was collecting items from the floor even after the body was carried out and the paramedic came back to pick up some of his things.

The appellate court ruling recalled this strange episode too:

  • As paramedics prepared to transport Mr. Jackson to UCLA medical center, appellant was observed in Mr. Jackson’s room alone with a trash bag in his hand. He was picking up items off of the floor near the nightstand…. His efforts to clean-up the scene also show guilt.  

As regards the evidence of Murray’s guilt the appellate court produced so much of it that the Lawmed site noted that Murray was buried with it and should be embarrassed that he addressed them with an appeal at all:

  • “The court buries Murray in the mountain of evidence presented against him. You get the feeling that there is a between-the-lines message “you should be embarrassed to have even tried to claim the evidence against you was insufficient to find you guilty.”    

And DA Walgren had a very good reason for producing all those Lorazepam and Midazolam bottles in their abundance. The sleep expert who testified at Murray’s trial said that those drugs were not to be prescribed for treating insomnia at all and their long-term use was even counterproductive for it.

The reason is because the benzodiazepines given by Murray form a dependency which in its turn causes restlessness, agitation and anxiety which was noticed by Murray but was attributed by him to a Demerol withdrawal. Murray’s own witness Dr. Waldman agreed that Michael’s restlessness could be the result of those benzodiazepines.

The appellate court said about it:

  • Dr. Kamangar, the expert in sleep medicine, concluded that appellant acted in extreme deviation from the standard of care in his treatment of Mr. Jackson’s insomnia. Dr.Kamangar also explained the physician can use drugs that are approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to treat insomnia—non-benzodiazepines—and if unsuccessful can use the four FDA approved benzodiazepines in tablet form (Triazolam, Temazepam, Flurazepam, and Prosom). Appellant, however,administered Diazepam, Lorazepam, and Midazolam, benzodiazepines that were not approved by the FDA to treat insomnia. 
  • He also opined the intravenous form of these drugs that appellant used was inappropriate for long-term treatment of insomnia.

In conclusion the appellate court ruling had the following to say about Murray:

  • Appellant’s callous disregard for Mr. Jackson’s health and safety was shown throughout the trial from the manner in which he administered a number of dangerous drugs to Mr. Jackson without the appropriate medical equipment, precautions or personnel in place, and to the manner in which he left Mr. Jackson unattended. 
  • The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Jackson was a vulnerable victim and that appellant was in a position of trust, and that appellant violated the trust relationship by breaching standards of professional conduct in numerous respects. 
  • The evidence also showed that the crime involved planning and sophistication. Appellant ordered large amounts of drugs from out of state, and kept no records of his treatment of Mr. Jackson. 
  • Appellant also engaged in a pattern of lies and deception before and after the crime. It appears that he attempted to clean up the crime scene and failed to provide accurate information to first responders and hospital personnel.  Appellant gave the police incomplete and misleading information during his interview. 
  • Finally, the evidence presented at sentencing showed that appellant failed to take responsibility and displayed a lack of remorse throughout the proceedings.

Indeed, guilty as sin.  


MURRAY:  … yet, still, jurors are sitting there and watching a prosecutor alter evidence to make his case, to win, and they would still find a man guilty.

LEMON:  Quickly, you go through all of these claims about altering evidence, about coercion and collusion of witnesses and all of that.

MURRAY:  Yes.  Sure.

LEMON:  The appeals court has said they will not rehear your case, that it’s been proven, open-and-shut case.  What are you going to do now?

MURRAY:  Well, the appeals case made a mistake.  They have added tubings. There were no two tubings, as Dr. Shafer stated in this case.  (INAUDIBLE) There were three tubings.  I have never given Michael Jackson anything with three tubings.


MURRAY:  And my next step, if California does not help me to right this wrong, I’m going to the Supreme Court, the law of the land.  I must believe that our judicial system does have integrity somewhere.

LEMON:  Stay with me, Dr. Murray, because, in some ways, you knew Michael Jackson better than anyone.  You were the last person to see him alive. When we come right back, we are going to talk about who Michael was behind those closed doors.

While they are in a commercial break let me say that in his recent video lecture Murray claimed something we hadn’t heard before. As could be easily expected this is a new theory again and will therefore be covered here in detail, but before that let me remind you what those “three tubings” were all about.

Those who watched Murray’s trial know that the prosecution first proved Murray’s guilt on a scientific basis and in theory only.

1) They recalculated the traces of propofol left in MJ’s urine into the amount initially infused into his blood. It turned out to be more than 2000mg (200ml) which is enough for several hours of general anesthesia. This refuted Murray’s theory of 25mg as ridiculous and proved that Michael was on a long drip for many hours.

2) Computer simulations showed that the propofol dripping into Michael’s blood eventually reached the level when his breathing stopped. Since Murray was away there was no chance he could notice it, and even if he had been in the room but not closely monitoring his patient he could have overlooked it too.

It is extremely sad to imagine it but when breathing slows down and eventually stops the process is silent and in the absence of monitoring equipment is easy to overlook. This is why having the necessary equipment was so essential.

3) The amount of propofol found in the urine and computer simulations of the process corresponded to each other and once again showed that Michael was on a continuous infusion of propofol and died under a drip.

Now the only thing that remained to be done was demonstrate how Murray did it and what arrangement of tubings he had on his IV stand.

IV secondary 1 The IV stand had two saline bags on it – one with a saline solution, and the other one with a slit in it and an empty propofol bottle inside. This second bag was taken off the IV stand by a bodyguard and hidden in the bag following Murray’s orders.

The tubings on the IV stand had a Y-arrangement – each bag had its own tubing which joined at some point and from there on the two liquids (saline and propofol) flowed together.

The lower part of the tubing did show the traces of propofol, the upper part from the saline bag did not, and the upper part from the propofol bag was missing – at least at the moment the police arrived.

The prosecution argued that the missing tubing had been hidden by Murray in the same way he wanted to hide the bag itself (only it was too big to go into his pocket and was therefore thrown into a trash bag from which it was later retrieved).

Murray claimed there was one tubing and he diluted propofol and saline in the proportion of 1mg per 1ml

Murray claimed there was one tubing and he diluted propofol and saline in the proportion of 1mg  of propofol per 1ml of saline

And now in his video lecture Murray solemnly declares that he never used the second bag at all and consequently there could never be a second tubing in principle.

He now says that he took one saline bag, injected or drained propofol there, shook the bag to mix the solution and then put Michael on a drip of this diluted propofol.

This way the concentration was minimal (1mg of propofol per 1ml of saline), the sedation was light and there was no danger to the patient.


What if I wanted to give 1000mg of propofol in 1000ml of saline? I would take one of the large bottles, I would drain it into the bag or I would extract by using the syringe multiple times. I would then shake it together and I would have a concentration of 1mg of propofol per 1ml of saline

To look into this new Murray’s theory I first needed to check whether the method allegedly used by him was okay to use at all. The available information was controversial – some said it was possible to mix the two liquids in one bag and some said that it wasn’t. A very long and thorough check-up finally rewarded me with detailed instructions which dotted the i’s and explained on what strict conditions the method could be used.

1) The first condition arises from propofol’s ability to quickly generate bacteria and says that it is okay to inject propofol through a special port in a saline bag but only if every possible aseptic precaution is taken – cleaning the propofol seal and port of the bag with an alcohol pad, using the syringe only once, etc.

2) The second condition is that propofol can be diluted with saline only in a very specific proportion and its concentration should be no less than 2mg of propofol per 1ml of the saline solution.

The instructions said about it:

  • Propofol can be used for infusion undiluted or diluted. The maximum dilution must not exceed 1 part of Propofol with 4 parts of 5% w/v glucose solution, 0.9% w/v sodium chloride solution, 0.18% sodium chloride & 4% dextrose solution (minimum concentration 2 mg propofol/ml). The mixture should be prepared aseptically (controlled and validated conditions preserved) immediately prior to administration and must be administered within 12 hours after preparation.
  • Final propofol concentration must not be below 2 mg/ml.

The unstable emulsion separates into two layers (picture C)

The unstable emulsion separates into two layers (picture C)

Why not to be below 2mg/ml?

The reason is an extremely serious one. Propofol is a fat emulsion, and saline is a water solution, and fat does not mix with water and if propofol is diluted too much, the commercially made emulsion becomes ‘unstable’ and this means that fat and water will separate into layers leaving propofol floating on top of the saline water (see picture C).

For a many-hour drip this is a fundamental issue. If the diluted propofol is unstable and separated all the more so, the drip into a patient’s blood will also be unstable.

First it will contain a thinly diluted propofol and at some point it will suddenly change into a high-concentration propofol floating on top of the mix, thus drastically changing the dosage of the drug dripping into the patient’s blood.

So if we are to believe Murray’s new story, it will actually prove only one thing – that he was terribly risking the life of his patient by subjecting him to an unbalanced solution which could bring about a stop in his breathing at any moment in time.

The unstable emulsion is a threat to a patient’s life and this is why the actual label on propofol does not even allow diluting it. The instructions do allow it but on a very strict condition that the minimal solution should not be lower than 2mg of propofol per 1ml of saline, while Murray says he routinely made the concentration twice as low.

Of course he invented this story to show that he was giving Michael minimal sedation, but in his zeal to lie and justify himself a little bit overdid it.

But even this is not all yet. If you analyze his theory further, things will become even worse.

He claimed that he injected and drained propofol into the bag. To inject Murray would have to draw propofol from a vial ten times and inject it into the 1000ml saline bag ten times too, each time keeping to the top aseptic rules (which I highly doubt he did, knowing Murray’s negligence and filthy sanitation habits).

And if he drained propofol into the bag, well… I don’t know how he would do that.

Slaine drip

Saline drip

Inspection showed that the saline bag is sealed on all sides, so the only remaining option for draining something inside it would be making a cut in it and pouring propofol in.

And if done this way all aseptic precautions could be thrown out of the window, of course.

What I mean by this small exercise is that no matter what new lie Murray comes up with, it doesn’t make his life any easier. It only raises more questions about his adequacy and competence, and the standards of care he as a doctor was supposed to adhere to (but didn’t).

In short, whichever way Murray tells his story it always comes to one and the same thing – the type of care he was providing to Michael Jackson was making the killing of his patient an inevitable outcome.


LEMON:  Michael Jackson was loved by millions of people all around the globe, but no one was a part of his world the way Dr. Conrad Murray was. And he is back with me now exclusively. You were the last person to see Michael Jackson alive.

MURRAY:  Correct.

LEMON:  Correct?

MURRAY:  Mm-hmm.

LEMON:  So I want you to take us inside of that room, and I want you to tell us about your relationship with him first. But I want you to hear from some of your patients, what they said about you. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GARY CAUSEY, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  He saved my life, and we have grown close over the last 11 years.

ANDREW GUEST, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  We’re all alive today because of Dr. Murray.  He is a great man.

DENNIS HIX, PATIENT OF CONRAD MURRAY:  He is the most compassionate man that I have ever met, best doctor I have ever had. (END VIDEO CLIP)

LEMON:  What is your reaction to that?  Do you miss practicing medicine?

MURRAY:  Of course.  I have never worked a day in my life, because I have enjoyed doing it so much and making the difference in the lives of many.

LEMON:  You realize that you’re vilified around the world, right?  I’m sure you realize that.

MURRAY:  That may be so. But I’m not a villain.  I can tell you – just let me take you back just briefly.

Dr. Shafer stated that I was reckless, that I used Propofol at home and that should never be done.  All of the doctors who testified in the trial.  Yet all the while I was being vilified by Dr. Shafer, he was protecting Dr. Robert Markman, a doctor who had used Propofol 500 times or more over five years for general anesthesia for his daughter for external gentilia pain.  And I was using Propofol for about sixty days for just (INAUDIBLE).  He defended that doctor as if there was nothing wrong with him.

Contrary to Murray’s expectations this news makes me jubilant. I’ve always been of an opinion that under certain circumstances propofol can be administered outside the hospital setting without harming the patient and for a prolonged time too – if only it is done by a qualified physician and in the presence of all necessary monitoring equipment.

And the fact that this woman is still alive and happily survived through 500 times of propofol administered to her for 5 years and Michael died after only 2 months in the hands of his criminally negligent doctor is the best proof that it isn’t propofol which is to blame.

It is the doctor who is.

Dr. Markman’s case was looked into by the Californian medical board only recently, in autum 2013. He is a retired anesthesiologist who used propofol at home for his daughter to block her nerve which was giving her extreme pain and didn’t allow to walk.

Dr. Markman administered 600 mg (60ml) by IV infusion every three days and kept medical records (1200 pages worth) of his treatment sessions and the treatments provided by other doctors for 17 years prior to that, all of which proved ineffective.

He was of course heavily reprimanded for using propofol outside the hospital setting, but in contrast to Murray his treatment room was fully equipped with monitoring equipment, propofol was administered by a pump, and considering these circumstances Dr. Shafer concluded that propofol was a reasonable last resort treatment for chronic pain and that Markman did not represent a danger to his daughter and neither did his treatments.

The board stated:

  • “The evidence shows, without contradiction, that there is no evidence that Ms.Markman has, as of this time, suffered any ill effects from the treatment. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to deprive Ms. Markman of the only treatment that has consistently afforded her any meaningful pain relief in order to address valid concerns about where and how propofol is administered to her. These concerns can be satisfactorily addressed through appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements”
  • “The safety of Ms. Markman will be protected if respondent is permitted to continue to treat Ms. Markman with propofol under appropriately controlled conditions and if respondent is also subject to other appropriate terms of probation, as set forth in the Order, below.”   

What an impressive conclusion.  So the 500 infusions of 600mg of propofol given to the patient every three days did not provide any ill effects and since this treatment was found to be the only one to alleviate the patient’s condition, propofol was even advised by the board to be continued!

Wow, I simply can’t believe it. This case is a great proof that if propofol had been given to MJ in the same quantity, at the same rate and with the same standard of care, there wouldn’t have been any ill effects either and he would have perfectly survived it.

Michael was right. He would have been safe if he had been properly monitored, and if it hadn’t been for Murray the events would have taken a totally different turn.


LEMON: And you talk about that again, in Dr. Conrad Murray –

MURRAY: Absolutely.  All the details are sure.

LEMON: OK, so let’s talk about Michael since we have you here. I want to hear about this person you call your friend.  You say you knew him better than anyone towards the end of his life – than anyone, correct?


LEMON: Did he share secrets with you?

MURRAY: Of course.  The most hidden treasure trove of his life is with me.  But have I protected Michael up until now.

LEMON: Up until now?

MURRAY: Of course.  Of course.  I’ve said nothing that has been inflammatory about my friend.  I protected Michael.  You see, when I had – the officials, and they pointed to Michael, the guy who could not pay me for months after taking care of him, and it’s sad that he could not pay for the Popsicle his daughters were using, the toilet paper that they were using to wipe their private areas, that he was penniless, I was shocked.  It was that time when Michael came to me trembling and trying to get me away from the AEG official who was Randy Phillips.

I was shocked.  I should have just picked my bottles up and leave had I been looking for money.  But there wasn’t money.  It was about the love of Michael.

I have suffered a lot.  There is no doubt about it.  But I don’t hate Michael.  Michael did not do me wrong.  He did not want this to happen to me.  Whatever happened to Michael when I was not there is probably his own misjudgment.  And I believe that that clearly happened because he was illogical, he was irrational, and he was in the withdrawal state from Demerol that Dr.Klein was feeding him.

LEMON: You said that he gave himself the drugs. You believe he gave himself the final dose?

MURRAY: The premises cannot be breached. It was not breached. There was no one else in the house, in the upper chambers but Michael and myself.  I was away from him.  The phone records shows that.

LEMON: But again I ask, should you have been with him?

MURRAY: No.  That’s a good question.  Because I gave Michael Jackson 25 milligrams of Propofol over three to five minutes.  All of the doctors, seven doctors in the test trial, assured there could be no Propofol effects after 10, maximum 15 minutes by Dr. Rogers, which is what I told police.  If I give Michael Jackson between 10:40 and 10:50, 25 milligrams of Propofol, the effect of the drug would be gone by 11:00.


MURRAY: If I monitor him, (INAUDIBLE) by 11:20 –

LEMON: You believe, according to medical standards, that you were reasonable with that.

MURRAY: Absolutely.

Just a moment please. What’s that I wonder?

  • “It was that time when Michael came to me trembling and trying to get me away from the AEG official who was Randy Phillips”.

“That time” must have been June 16th when Randy Phillips threatened that Michael would lose everything, even his kids. The next days Michael looked very frightened but stoic using Karen Faye’s expression. She learned of that scene on June 18th when Kenny Ortega was enraged that Michael came to a rehearsal very late and told her of their decision to play tough love on him every since.

And now we find that Michael was trembling all over after those threats and even tried to get Murray away from Randy Phillips.

Now look here. To be able to get Murray away from Phillips, Murray must have been very close to him in the first place.  And Murray’s slip of the tongue reveals that this was indeed so and Michael knew about it. No wonder he didn’t trust Murray and was looking for another doctor. So he did realize that Murray was working for AEG and not him…

LEMON: So you said you haven’t shared any secrets of Michael’s until now.  Do you plan to?  Is there something you want to tell us?

MURRAY: I would not share with you any hidden secrets of Michael.  Not at this time.  We don’t have that in summary.

LEMON: But how long you going to be silent?

MURRAY: How long am I going to be silent?  As long as I wish to.  I really –

LEMON: One day will you tell?

MURRAY: I can’t answer the question, to be totally honest.  And I don’t know.  I still protect Michael.

What a disgusting scene. The media represented by Don Lemon is bargaining with doctor Conrad Murray to open a certain “treasure trove of secrets” his patient could or could not confide in him (veracity of information is not the point here), and all this bargaining is done in the open, in everyone’s view, with someone who is supposed to be a doctor who by the very definition of his profession is obliged to preserve his patient’s privacy.

The Seller is advertising the goods (“The most hidden treasure trove of his life is with me”).

The Buyer is impatient and dying to know when the secret will be available (“You haven’t shared any secrets of Michael’s until now.  Do you plan to? How long you going to be silent? One day will you tell?).

"How long am I going to be silent? As long as I wish"

“How long am I going to be silent? As long as I wish to”

However the Seller is bargaining and with a defiant expression on his face says that he will keep silent “as long as he wishes to” thus making it clear that he is not going to sell it cheap and will wait for the highest price.

And all that is said by a doctor?

And after that Murray wants the Superior Court to restore him in the medical profession?

We should send them this CNN transcript as the final argument that it is simply out of the question.

Now let us be practical about what we’ve just seen here.

Considering Murray’s personality there is little hope that the sale and purchase deal can be avoided, and it is then that we can expect Conrad Murray to tell some unspeakable lie about Jackson. And I can even guess what kind of a lie it will be.

The subject is a very well-known one. What else can it be besides “boys”? Especially considering the fact that Wade Robson was seeking contact with Murray and wanted to cooperate with him in his lawsuit? So the story this despicable person is planning to tell us will be something along the lines of the alleged dark secret allegedly revealed to him when Michael was allegedly under sedation.

Let us brace ourselves  for the prospect and remember that Murray is a monstrous liar.

And also remember that his word of lie will be directly contested by Michael Jackson’s word of truth – his testimony which was obtained by this scumbag of a doctor in a highly fraudulent way. And was given to him by Michael in exactly the same half-conscious state which Murray is now evidently planning to describe.

Given that Michael didn’t know that he was being recorded and couldn’t control his thoughts it can be regarded as his truest testimony and on the Bible too.

I’m naturally talking about the recording made by Murray when Michael was already half asleep and could hardly move his tongue. And where Michael said that God wanted him to take care of children and that kids were angels, and that it hurt him very much to see their pain, and that he dreamt of being able to heal them in a hospital of his own – from their ills and their depression. And where he revealed that his songs “Lost children”, “Heal the world” and others sprang from his real pain because this is what really hurt him since his own lost childhood.

He also revealed his sadness at having no more hope in these people due to their psychological degradation and that it was possibly only the next generation that would heal the planet from its ills.

For psychological degradation I address you to the media and Dr. Conrad Murray as a vivid example of it, and for Michael Jackson’s deepest secrets I address you to his dreams of healing children and the world, which were so inherent to his soul that he spoke of them in the moments of his greatest possible candor.


The remaining part of Murray’s interview is a cheap and sentimental show intended for complete imbeciles.

In this part you will learn of Murray’s monumental grief for Michael and his children, and that Murray was Michael’s only family, and that he was the only one to ever hug Michael’s children, and that Janet Jackson hugging the tearful Paris on stage was actually shutting her up this way, and that the poor criminal doctor wants to serve humanity now.

Don Lemon is playing up to Murray in their sentimental duet:

LEMON: What is your life like now?  Everywhere you go, today you went somewhere, and I saw a picture of you, and they had a picture of you drinking, getting milk, and they said oh, that’s what Michael Jackson called Propofol, milk.  And that must be some sort of, you know, there is a message that you’re sending.

MURRAY: Tabloids will twist anything. You know, milk.  They have called Michael all kinds of names.  I have  not.  My life is certainly a struggle.  I’m doing the best I can to put it back on track –

LEMON: You get depressed?

MURRAY: Me?  No.

LEMON: How do you take care of yourself?

MURRAY: Family and friends, the goodness of my family and friends.

LEMON: The kindness of family and friends.

MURRAY: Kindness, yes. Exactly.

LEMON: So you have no job. I know you’re working for the Trinidad Medical-

MURRAY: I am not working for Trinidad medical government.  I have volunteered to bring cardiac surgery for the pediatric children more available.  I have helped with their program, which took about seven weeks.

LEMON: So you have no income?


LEMON: None at all?


LEMON: So I have to ask you this.  Michael Jackson’s children.


LEMON: Some of them are doing okay.  Some of them are suffering horribly.  His girl tried to commit suicide according to reports.  What do you say?  They were there that night or that afternoon watching their father, – if not dying, already dead.


LEMON: What do you say to them?

MURRAY: Oh, my gosh.  The loss is monumental.  I grieve for Michael every day.  And I grieve for those children.  I was the only person that Michael brought to his attention of all his families and friends who were still hugging his children.  They would come into my arms every day.  That warms his heart.  His father had never done that. His mother and sisters were never embracing the children.

I was at the hospital the day that Michael passed away.  And they did not put an arm around the children.  The only time I saw an arm around Paris is when she cried on stage, and I saw her aunt place her (INAUDIBLE) hands over her mouth (ph).  Was she trying to shut her up or was she really trying to comfort her?  I don’t know.

But I love those children.  And you know what?  Maybe there will be a day when they would like to speak with me.  And I am quite open.  I have nothing to hide.

LEMON: Do you have anything to say to his family, to his mother?

MURRAY: Michael loved his mother of the only other relatives that he had.  Prior to Michael’s death, he announced to me he had four family members besides himself – Paris, Michael, and Prince Michael, Blanket and Dr.  Conrad.  That was his family.  Everyone else was totally absolved from his life.

He used his mother only because she may be the only chance of maybe having some way to pacify things between the differences in the family.  But not – but he did not have a relationship with any members.

So Murray claims that Michael used his mother to pacify things within the family and makes it look like this was only reason why he associated with her? Of all Murray’s crazy ideas this one sounds to me the craziest and most insulting of all.

And this picture shows the moment when Paris rushed to Janet Jackson and Janet hugged her during the memorial service which Conrad Murray is describing in a unique and exceptional manner of his own, suspecting Janet of “shutting the girl up” – while all Janet is doing is giving Paris a hug of genuine love and protection.

At the memorial service

At the memorial service Janet gives Paris a hug of genuine love and protection

Is there anyone here besides Murray who also thinks that Janet was shutting her up?

Well yes, it may look like it, but only if you see this picture for the first time, haven’t witnessed the scene with your own eyes and don’t know the context of it …. which incidentally gives us an interesting insight into the way things can be taken out of context and interpreted by Conrad Murray and presented by him in a totally twisted way.

It is indeed an interesting example, so let us make a mental note of it as the rest of his stories are similarly false, crooked and twisted.

The more Murray speaks the more he reveals a pathological side to him typical of all sociopaths – their super ego, callousness, inability to have real sympathy for other people and a cynical disbelief that others may have real feelings. They also try to exhibit sweet emotions – care, love and concern for others, but inside there are none. All of it is simulated, and hence a huge discrepancy between what Murray says and does, and his ability to change within seconds from a declaration of sweetest love to a severe hatred raging inside him and shown each time people aren’t fooled by his tricks.

The interview is finally drawing to its end:

LEMON: And yet you’re the only one people hold responsible for his death, and you went to prison.

MURRAY: You know, I have been hurt.  There is no doubt about it.  But I carry no anger.  I would not allow them to do that to me.  I would like to hopefully one day use my testimony so that it can prevent others who have undergone injustice; innocent men go to prison all the time.  Maybe they should wear one of the shoes.

Now let me say something about the fans, for example.  There are all kinds of fans.  There are those who are diehards and have their reasons, and there are many who have.  I am Michael’s fan.

LEMON: Right.

MURRAY: But regardless –

LEMON: Okay. Do you think you deserve a second chance?  Anew beginning?  You would like to practice medicine again.

MURRAY: Absolutely.

LEMON: Sometime second chances, though, are new beginnings.  You can’t go back and do what you did before.  Maybe you’ll have to do something else.

MURRAY: I will serve humanity.

LEMON: Thank you, Dr. Conrad Murray.  Appreciate you.  Best of luck.

MURRAY: You’re welcome.


Conrad Murray is going to serve humanity now? Oh Lord, please save us from the danger of it.


Some people may think that this talk about Murray is untimely – and will be utterly wrong in thinking so.

The reason to talk about Murray now is his obvious plan to tell some horrendous lie about Michael and the media’s readiness to play up to him.

This plan was convincingly demonstrated by Don Lemon’s interview where he swept under the carpet every piece of unwelcome truth about Murray and gave full reign to his lies. The goal of this whitewashing is an attempt to turn Murray into someone presentable and convince the public that he can be trusted.

Why does the media want it? Because this so-called doctor is in an exceptional position of telling any lie about Jackson his crooked mind is capable of inventing and no one will be really able to check it up. Don Lemon’s insistent questions do not leave a doubt that they are looking forward to it as it will fit someone’s agenda and give the media something to talk about till the end of times.

However the plan is facing a problem – Murray has proven himself an exceptional liar and to be able to sell some dirt about Jackson the first thing they need to do is make Murray believable.

This is why not a single Murray’s word was challenged in this interview and not a single of his multiple lies was refuted. Not a single inconvenient question was asked and all we saw was a sweet flirting with this personality.

The despicable Murray also knows where the most money is, so the media and Murray’s interests fully coincide here and all that remains to be done now is settling the price of the deal.

Given that Murray also suddenly engaged himself in an extraordinary video activity, all this is a sure sign that we are already on the verge of this campaign.

So those who are ready to work for the truth about Michael Jackson are requested to please walk just one step ahead of it and tell everyone what Conrad Murray really is.

And he is a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR with a CRIMINAL SIDE to him who is in DIRE STRAITS now and suffering from an INSATIABLE THIRST FOR MONEY too.

And if we show people the extremes Murray is ready to go to in his lies and slander of Michael Jackson, there is a slight chance that we will ruin the scams of those who count on making a huge profit out of a new character assassination of an innocent man.

32 Comments leave one →
  1. Christy permalink
    January 4, 2022 11:32 pm

    One of my favorite articles to revisit..
    Seriously I gotta say Conrad Murray and Yolanda Saldivar ( Selena Quintanilla’s murderer) are clones of each other in the way they both attempt to insult the intelligence of others with the drivel they spew..
    In my view, Michael’s final months have played out like a toxic, abusive relationship..if only he could have gotten out of sickening..and tragic..


  2. sanemjfan permalink
    August 1, 2016 12:57 am

    Here’s Raven’s new article against Conrad Murray’s new book:


  3. Marsha permalink
    August 18, 2014 9:21 am

    Dear Helena, now the plot thickens. We see now why Murray likes to point out that Micheal urinated in the bed and that he would not change his sheets according to him, now maids come out to say “how dirty he was” I read that the wade’s trial is set for Oct. For the life of me I Cannot understand why anyone would give credence to anything he says. Either way he is a liar. he lied during the 2005 trial which is purjury, or he is lying now. Nor can I understand how one can charge a dead man who cannot be there to face his accuser or defend himself. Certain people in America like to say that they should be held accountable for slavery and that reparations should not be given because those that were slaves are dead so why does it not apply here. Seems to me you can accuse Michael of being anything even a mass murderer and it will be believed. When will this foolishness end!


  4. August 13, 2014 3:01 pm

    Thanks a lot for this Jolie 🙂


  5. jolie permalink
    August 13, 2014 8:49 am

    Hi Helena,

    Please read article by someone whose mother worked at Neverland as a housekeeper:


  6. newrodrigo permalink
    August 7, 2014 7:32 am

    Saying he married Michael lol


  7. August 6, 2014 8:55 pm

    Hello all, what’s the latest on the Safechuck douche bag.


  8. jolie permalink
    August 1, 2014 11:21 pm

    YouTube “Michael Jackson’s Neverland – Home Tour Special II – July 6 2009 (Kellie Parker)” link:


  9. Neverland permalink
    July 31, 2014 6:19 pm

    Sorry for my bad english, it is not my native language. Assume you’re right. Why on earth did Michael fight for Neverland, if he lost all his rights of ownership? If he really have had no chance to save his ranch, why deal with Tohme, Phillips and Barrack at all?

    Only because Branca announce in an interview that he is sad and sorry for the loss of Neverland, does not necessary mean he speaks the truth – It is nothing new that people lie when it comes to Michael. And we must not forget that Branca earns millions of dollars in MJs name. I know you have high thoughts about JB, and I respect that. But it is a fact that nearly all people who was involved in Michaels business sooner or later cheated him. And several people mentioned independently, that Michael repeatedly told he doesn’t trust Branca.

    I admire your investigations and agree with the most you’re writing. I only disagree when it comes to the people who runs the estate. I am not convinced that Brancas intentions are pure and honest, there are too many inconsistencies.


  10. July 31, 2014 12:08 pm

    Let us sum up.
    – Tom Barrack saw an invaluable piece of property and seized it for a quarter of the price.

    – He paid $24,5 mln to prevent the foreclosure of Neverland on two conditions: 1) that he would gain ownership of Neverland and 2) Michael would strike a deal with AEG Live.

    – On November 10, 2008 Michael officially passed over his ownership rights to Sycamore Valley Ranch Co. LLC, the address of which coincides with Tom Barrack’s mailing address. The “joint venture” was evidently a smokescreen meant to conceal the fact that Neverland had been sold.

    – The November deal was rumored to be worth $35mln, so Michael probably even received the difference (or the interest only?) as the initial $24,5 went over to the Fortress company and he never saw that money.

    – One year later, in 2009 Barrack was offering Neverland already for $97mln (to Audigier) but the deal was not finalized.

    – And a year prior to that when Michael was in a difficult financial situation Barrack estimated Neverland at only $24,5mln ($35mln?) and used the deal as a leverage to force Michael to work with AEG (or otherwise they would “preside over a funeral” according to him):

    Barrack had a relationship with the loan holder, Fortress, and was able to get an extension to give his Colony team time to crunch the numbers. They concluded that the only way to make a deal work would be for Jackson to start generating new revenue, which meant performing old material.

    Two days later, Barrack called Jackson. “I told him: ‘Where you are is an insolvable puzzle unless you’re willing to go back to work. If you’re willing to do that, then we can help, but if you’re not willing to do that, it’s just presiding over a funeral.’ ”

    At first, Jackson demurred. “He really had a hard time with that, and he struggled for about three days. Finally, he calls back and says, ‘You’re right, I’ll do it.’ ”

    The evaluation of Neverland (same as other Michael’s assets) was evidently made by Eric Briggs who testified for AEG at their trial in 2013 and who was the one who provided Fortress and Barrack with information about Michael’s financial “funeral”.

    And after all this information Tohme, Barrack, AEG executives and Briggs are considered nice and respectable people, while Branca is considered the main villain?

    I really don’t understand.

    Don’t you see that Tohme (working for Barrack’s Colony Capital), Barrack (friend of Philip Anschutz of AEG), AEG executives and Briggs (who estimated Michael’s assets for Fortress with whom Barrack “had a relationship”) were all in cahoots and most probably estimated Michael’s assets too low in order to take advantage of him?


  11. July 31, 2014 11:34 am

    “Branca must have been OK with this decision, because the Estate owns 87,5% of Neverland!!!”

    I’m sure that Branca is not OK with this decision (he actually said so in his statement) and of the 87,5% “owned” by the Estate I am not sure at all. This screen shot from the Estate’s report for 2011 speaks of a certain “membership” in the Sycamore Valley Ranch Co. LLC but states that its nominal value is one dollar as “liabilities for this entity exceed the assets”.

    How can you “own” a company if your share in it has the value of one dollar?

    Whatever is the case with the membership the article below explains that on November 10, 2009 Michael passed the title of Neverland ownership to Sycamore Valley Co. It points out that Tom Barrack and Sycamore Valley have a common mailing address:

    Neverland has changed hands
    When his company bailed Michael Jackson out of foreclosure with a refinance of a twenty-three million dollar debt in May, insiders predicted it was only a matter of time before Tom Barrack took over the keys to the ranch.
    It didn’t take long. On Monday, November 10, Michael Jackson officially deeded over ownership of Neverland’s 2,675 oak studded acres to Sycamore Valley Ranch Company, LLC. Neighbors said moving vans and merry-go-rounds have been rolling down Figueroa Mountain Road.

    Unsurprisingly, the man Forbes calls Richest American #227, Thomas Barrack, and the LLC have a common mailing address, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90067.

    Barrack, 61, has owned ranches in Santa Ynez for decades. His net worth is estimated at $2.0 billion. Early reports valued this deal at $35 million. Some sources said Jackson retained an interest.


  12. July 31, 2014 11:02 am

    In September 2009 Tom Barrack was already selling Neverland for $97million and Christian Audigier was planning to buy it. A couple of quotes about it:

    Christian Audigier Buys Neverland Ranch
    September 04, 2009 by: Bridget Daly

    The Neverland Ranch has just gotten a new owner! According to reports, Christian Audigier has just purchased the estate.
    According to AFP, Audigier bought the $90 million ranch to serve as his company’s headquarters for Ed Hardy.
    Audigier said in an interview, “I can have the house in one month now. I get the keys two weeks from today.“

    Tom Barrack was universally called by the media the new owner of Neverland (which he really was as all that talk about a joint venture was simply dust thrown into people’s eyes), and the sum of $24 mln he paid to Fortress for buying the foreclosure note on Neverland in 2008 only a year later quickly turned into $97 mln which was the real price Tom Barrack assessed Neverland for.

    So our conclusion that Tom Barrack regarded buying that foreclosure note for Neverland as a lucky acquisition of great property almost for peanuts was correct – the price he really estimated the property for was at least four and a half times higher.

    I know that for some it is legitimate business but let us not call such deals “saving” Neverland or “helping” Michael Jackson, okay?

    Michael Jackson’s Neverland Home has a Buyer
    JULY 13, 2009
    Posted under: Real Estate

    LONDON – French fashion tycoon Christian Audigier is set to buy Michael Jackson’s Neverland home.

    “I have decided to buy that house,” the Mirror quoted him as telling French TV.
    The designer is also planning to build a theme complex dedicated to the icon similar to Elvis Presley’s Graceland.
    He may also offer online tours for fans to the ranch that Jackson turned into a personal theme park.

    Colony Capital who had purchased the California ranch in 2008 for 20 million-pound is keen to sell it after the legend’s demise. Neverland is now worth an estimated $97,150,000.

    Please note that no one is even trying to conceal the fact that Colony Capital is the owner and has the right to sell. They blatanly say that Tom Barrack PURCHASED the ranch and was planning to SELL it.

    Here is a post about Audigier:


  13. July 31, 2014 10:47 am

    The fact that Neverland is OWNED by Tom Barrack was confirmed by the court documents (evidently Tohme vs. MJ’s Estate). The journalists who had access to those documents wrote an article about it (which is now gone). A quote from it:

    Just who is the mysterious Dr. Tohme Tohme, and what are his ties to Michael Jackson and Neverland? In the latest interviews Tohme claims he’s just an unpaid adviser and spokesperson for Michael Jackson, but in court records we found a different story, where Tohme claims he’s President of Michael Jackson Productions.

    Tohme claimed he set up the original meeting between Barrack, Tohme, and Jackson. One result of the meeting: Barrack wound up saving Neverland from the auction but also gained ownership, with Jackson given some sort of profit sharing agreement. It was Barrack who contacted the owner of AEG, Phillips Anschutz. (The link is not working).

    This is how the original article looked like – the caption says:
    “Neverland is gone.” Dr. Tohme has said. “Neverland is finished”.


  14. July 31, 2014 10:32 am

    The sale of Neverland is very sad news. But Tom Barrack became OWNER of Neverland when the deal was made in 2008. I told everyone about it a year ago but no one believed me. Here is the post about it:

    Relevant quotes from the NYMagazine:

    Nov 28, 2010

    Colony would bail Jackson out of his substantial debt; in return, the firm would assume ownership of Neverland, and Jackson, after a thirteen-year hiatus, would go back to work to generate new revenue.

    As if trying to bring home to us the crucial element of the deal the New York Magazine stated this condition on each page of their article, so here it is once again:

    Colony agreed to bail out Jackson; in return, the firm would take ownership of Neverland and arrange for AEG, the concert promoter owned by Barrack’s friend Phil Anschutz, to stage a comeback.

    And once again:

    You’ll see why Michael called this place Neverland,” says Tom Barrack, the newest owner of Michael Jackson’s Neverland Valley Ranch. Barrack is a 63-year-old billionaire with a gleaming shaved head, summer-in-Sardinia tan, personally trained muscles, and sockless tasseled loafers. He is sitting on the lawn beside the Tudor-style, panic-room-equipped main house, near a gnarled oak tree with steps winding up to the perch where Jackson wrote Bad


  15. Neverland permalink
    July 31, 2014 8:41 am

    Branca must have been OK with this decision, because the Estate owns 87,5% of Neverland!!!


  16. Christy permalink
    July 30, 2014 11:29 am

    *wearily rubs my forehead* blah everything Conrad Murray says makes me wanna get brain bleach..don’t know if it’s just me but in a lot of ways he has the same mindset of Selena’s murderer (Yolanda Saldivar)


  17. Marsha permalink
    July 24, 2014 12:35 pm

    Helena I agree that they should get permission from the estate, but according to the article they did offer the material to the Estate and they did not purchase. If so, would not this be reminiscent of what happened between Michael and Paul McCartney? Which turned out bad for McCarntey. And as for the estate making money I think that they should after all it is Michael’s Estate. But I do think that they miss many opportunities to do so, such as in this case. Also I have always been told that it is the photographer that owns the pictures maybe that is wrong I do not Know. And as for permission to use photographs and such things I know that the people that did that atrocious Autopsy did not have the estates permission to use the material, where was the Estate then? And one other thing as to the estate making money, and the release of xscape album and the others. I wish people would remember that Sony’music is really ATV/Sony Which is owned 50% by Michael Jackson/Michael Jackson’s Estate. So while they may think they are harming Sony they are actually harming Michael when they refuse to by just because Sony’s name is attached.


  18. July 23, 2014 4:21 am

    “The estate of Michael was stopping Noval Williams film company from selling the last Photo-shoot of Michael by Ebony.” -Marsha

    Marsha, of course I would be happier if the Estate expressed their attitude to Murray’s interviews once again but probably they think that the previous statement is enough. If Murray really starts telling lies about Michael they will sue him but while he only brags that he will they probably can’t do anything about it (freedom of speech, you know).

    As to the Estate not allowing the film about the photo-shoot for Ebony – I think that the Estate has the sole right to using Michael’s image (for money I mean) and if someone else wants to use it for their own profit, they should receive the Estate’s permission and pay for it as if for a licence.

    To me it looks like a purely business decision made in the interests of Michael’s children. Otherwise everybody will start making money on Michael bypassing his heirs. The Estate doesn’t want any precedents to be created. If Ebony wants to release a documentary they should definitely split their profits with the Estate, and this is what they evidently didn’t want to do.

    You know, many people for some reason find fault with the Estate for making money and this invariably amazes me. Their whole goal is to make money for Michael’s children, so how can people rebuke them for what is actually their main job?

    The critics also say that the children have not yet seen this money, but this is wrong again – the money will be passed over to them when they come of age. If the Estate fails to do so, then claims can really be made towards them, but not earlier.


  19. Marsha permalink
    July 21, 2014 11:23 pm

    Helena, I just saw an article that stated the The estate of Michael was stopping Noval Williams film company from selling the last Photo-shoot of Michael by Ebony. If this is true, seems to me they should be fighting CNN, Reelz and Murray and the people that produced that farce called the Autopsy and others from spreading lies. Not something that would be positive such as this film.


  20. Marsha permalink
    July 21, 2014 10:49 pm

    Excellent post Helena. I agree that he is going to peddle some lie. But if people are aware of what was shown in the trial and other things that Murray has said I do not see how they could possible believe any thing he says about Michael’s private life whether in the past or while he was with him, Maybe I misunderstand or I am inaccurate, but I thought that Murray was only with him at night time after the rehearsals? If so, then Michael would have been asleep the majority of the time, if I am not mistaken. So when did all of these heart to heart revelations occur? And if he did have some clandestine tape from his phone would not the police have gotten it even if it was deleted?And also. If he claims that the drugs made him say things that would not be accurate either.The drugs he gave would make it easy for someone to put ideas into your head as opposed to the opposite I believe. O, and just one small note on Don Lemon I believe he was abused as a child, or someone in his family was hence he would be more apt. to be friendly towards Murray. And as for Michael not having money to pay for Popsicles or toilet paper, well what a crock of lies that is, even if he only got 100 dollars a month from the royalties off of his own music never mind the Beetles catalog, he could have paid for that


  21. July 21, 2014 2:18 pm

    Great post. Thanks Helena.


  22. July 17, 2014 4:12 pm

    Murray is a psychopath,a pathological liar and crazy for money (now via paid interviews) just waiting for the biggest pot of money.He should not be paid for shutting up.He should never be trused.


  23. July 17, 2014 3:13 pm

    The treasure is a bait. Ofcourse it does not exist. Look up “Gold scams from Ghana”.Those huge amounts of gold some grandfater hid do not exist either.I just want to point out the similarity between Murray’s method and the scammers. You will find links to stories. Neither do the exuberant inherited millions.They serve as baits.


  24. July 17, 2014 2:58 pm

    That is exactly what I mean. Look up everything you can find on scammers and their methods. Murray is following their format.
    Scammer is a Cheat- but a very special kind of cheat. Look ” up Nigerian scamletters”. I do not want to in any way to blame honest people in Ghana& Nigeria but there is organised crime that uses these sc scamletters. For ex” I have gold worth 25 milj. but can not convert it bla ,bla, first I need xx amount of money to hire a lawyer, “this is only the beginning to an endless request asking for more and it never ends till the person scammed detects the scam. Some people have lost their life savings, taken loans and ended up in the street .Another scam started out: I am a princess and my father left me 8 milj. dollars, but I can get them out and transferred. Please help me and you will get 1/3 of this sum. I have heard stories of real victims. Of course the victims are embarassed and will not easily seek help. Murray is copying their method,”I have a treasure”.The treasure of gold from Ghana or the big inheritance does not exist. It is a bait. Look up Gold from Ghana.


  25. July 17, 2014 2:19 pm

    “So Murray is in the possession of a treasure.” – t

    Oh God, he absolutely isn’t! I evidently need to rewrite the post if it is not clear.

    Murray does not have anything to tell, but he can invent anything he likes and pass it for the “truth”. That’s the whole point of this post.

    We can imagine what dirt can be invented by a person like him – the man who has not yet said a single word of truth about the way he killed Michael. Not a single word of truth.

    All true factual information we possess now has been learned either through research (by the prosecution, Dr. Shafer and other experts) or due to Murray’s slips of the tongue. But never from Murray’s own narration.

    And now it depends only on us whether he will step on the road of slandering Michael or not. If we show each and everyone what a monstrous liar he is, there is a chance that we will prevent it.


  26. July 17, 2014 12:00 pm

    I would not fault Lemon yet. Often it is worth letting somebody go full speed with their pseudologia. In the end that will reveal more.
    So Murray is in the possession of a treasure.”The most hidden treasure throve of his life´s truth”.Murray will keep silent as long as he wishes. More paid interviews to come..This thruth exists only in Murray´s fertile imagination. Please look up scammers on the net and learn their methods.


  27. July 17, 2014 3:28 am

    I want to refer to the i-phone recording once more because Murray’s answer to this question is so symptomatic and typical for his way to feign shabby excuses.

    “Well, first of all, I was accused of recording that so that I can take advantage of Michael down the road. And that was not the case. I did not even recognize or realize that that recording was actually on my phone. Michael had asked me, well, as far as I could look back, how much he snores at night. And I would speak to him about that. He wanted to record that, not only on tape, but on camera. I actually had just learned from my daughter who taught me to do talks and one of the apps on the phone.”

    At first he says that he “did not even recognize or realize that that recording was actually on my phone”.
    Next he says that Michael had asked him how much he snores at night and that “he wanted to record that, not only on tape, but on camera.”
    In his next sentence he says that he “actually had just learned from my daughter who taught me to do talks and one of the apps on the phone.”
    These are 3 different answers to that one question which are inconsistent.

    But it goes on:

    LEMON: But the question behind that is, so you were trying to monitor his sleep pattern, whether or not he was snoring, and that’s how you got that recording.
    MURRAY: That’s exactly how that was done when I look back in retrospect, yes.

    Now I wonder: If he remembers in retrospect that this recording exists because Michael asked him to record him snoring, then why didn’t he realize that that recording was on his phone? And how did he make the recording when he actually had just learned from his daughter how to do it? And if Michael asked him to record him even on camera – does he have a video and where is it? And where are the recordings with Michael actually snoring – because this allegedly was the purpose of it?

    Next Murray interrupts the interviewer and explains in a puzzling way that Michael is alert, but is going to sleep on this recording, and says: “At the end of that state, of that recording, did you hear what he says in the end? He says, I’m asleep.”

    Now I wonder why exactly at that point, when Michael falls asleep, the recording ends. A few sentences ealier Murray says that the recording was done to record whether Michael was snoring or not, but the recording starts with Michael talking and ends exactly when he starts sleeping. So how does this make sense? Murray himself nullified his earlier explanation.

    I detailed this part of the interview only so explicitly to show with this example Murray’s pattern of inconsistent answers which are transparent throughout all his interviews. And not once did the interviewer take up these points and ask the necessary questions.
    I think it is no mistake to become familiar with Murray’s pattern of presenting lies to the media who allow him to do that. I am almost sure there will be more of it in the future.

    The Estate had served him with a paper earlier this year (or last year) and already threatened him with legal steps if he continues to talk about private conversations with Michael. I think this is still valid. But the sociopathic Murray probably is not impressed by it and thinks he is above the law as he already thought in his criminal case. It remains to be seen what the Estate is going to do if Murray doesn’t stop. But as long as Murray doesn’t reveal contents of private conversations, they probably have nothing against him legally.


  28. Nan permalink
    July 16, 2014 10:34 pm

    WHERE is MJ estate on this ???
    Why isnt Murray being sued for putting this stuff out here , when he was the mans doctor?
    Like they threatened after the Australian 60 minutes show
    They should be on top of this .
    I think Murray is a sick sick man .sociopath, but it is Lemon who actually repulses me.
    For someone who sat in the courtroom and watched /listened to the testimony ….to play stupid at this point , something is definitely up
    I just messaged Lemon on his FB page and referenced this link to tell him people are aware of what CNN agenda is
    We all know that Wade doesnt actually want to go to court as Mesereau has said.
    Mezz says his lawyer has taken a look at the history of Weitzman settling and is salivating.
    That his lawyer assumes they will settle to aboid negative publicity
    Seems to me , that it would benefit them to have this “DOCTOR” out there being presented to the public as an innocent man, who will keep MJ secrets as long as he feels like it .
    That sounds like extortion to me.
    However , I cant believe anyone with even the slightest knowledge of MJ, even a passing interest doesnt know he absolutely loved his mother..
    For this loser to be saying he only included her in his life as some kind of negotiation shows he intends to inflict as much pain as he can , on his family , all the while feigning compassion.
    And it is pretty telling that MJ would ask Murray to stay away from Phillips.
    Reminds me of Mesereau saying MJ begged him , not to turn on him , over greed., because he knew how many people wanted him convicted, for ratings and his catalog lost etc.
    So we have MJ begging Murray to have mj remain his main concern, not philips . and we have the contract that mj never signed , and murray pressuring him to give permission for his medical records, the night he died , per order of Phillips
    Im sure MJ couldnt sleep at all that night
    what a nightmare for MJ, to be surrounded by all these horrible people


  29. July 16, 2014 7:25 pm

    And when might we expect Murray to slither back out from under his rock to reveal one of Michael’s “secrets”? I think not unreasonable to expect we will next hear from him on or around Michael’s August 28th birthday at which time CNN will once again so generously provide him with a platform. CNN is no better than the infamous ReelzChannel which aired the disgusting British “autopsy” program also on June 25th. You are so correct about the agenda behind it all.


  30. July 16, 2014 12:40 pm

    “there is still so much more in my mind that could be said about it” – Susannerb

    Susannerb, that’s absolutely true. Almost every sentence here requires a comment, and I limited myself to a minimum by an act of will. Otherwise it would have been a 10-part series. But please say everything you want to say about it because all of it is indeed an outrage.

    Even more than Murray himself, who is the sick sociopath for whom I feel nothing anymore, I despise the interviewer who talks to this criminal as if he were his friend, who shows understanding for him, who decoys him to no longer “protect” his victim and tell secrets about him on the very day he killed him 5 years ago, and who wishes him well at the end: “Appreciate you. Best of luck”.

    Oh. Exactly. The interviewer also impressed me most. And his agenda is obvious.


  31. July 16, 2014 7:25 am

    Oh Helena, you did such a great job in picking this interview to pieces, and there is still so much more in my mind that could be said about it. But I think it’s not necessary to specify more lies and agendas behind this interview. It already became very clear that Murray’s lies can be refuted easily and that the media are not willing to do exactly this.
    Even more than Murray himself, who is the sick sociopath for whom I feel nothing anymore, I despise the interviewer who talks to this criminal as if he were his friend, who shows understanding for him, who decoys him to no longer “protect” his victim and tell secrets about him on the very day he killed him 5 years ago, and who wishes him well at the end: “Appreciate you. Best of luck”.

    Now imagine, the victim of Murray had been somebody else, like the president of the United States, or just another famous star like Elvis Presley or John Lennon or well-respected actors and directors like Woody Allen, would this interview have taken place in the same way on the anniversary of his death?
    I doubt it. So this can only mean that another agenda is behind it of which the media (and perhaps others) hope to make a profit.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: